February 1, 2014

A now familiar feature of this coverage, wherever the Super Bowl is held, is an abundance of stories, from Reuters to CNN, reporting that the event will cause a surge in sex trafficking to capitalize on the influx of fans and tourists.

Representative Christopher H. Smith, Republican of New Jersey and co-chairman of the House anti-human trafficking caucus, and Gov. Chris Christie announced a law enforcement crackdown. Cindy McCain, in advance of next year’s Super Bowl in Arizona, flew in to stand at Mr. Christie’s side, declaring that the Super Bowl is “the largest human-trafficking event on the planet.”

The problem is that there is no substantiation of these claims. The rhetoric turns out to be just that.

No data actually support the notion that increased sex trafficking accompanies the Super Bowl. The Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women, a network of nongovernmental organizations, published a report in 2011 examining the record on sex trafficking related to World Cup soccer games, the Olympics and the Super Bowl. It found that, “despite massive media attention, law enforcement measures and efforts by prostitution abolitionist groups, there is no empirical evidence that trafficking for prostitution increases around large sporting events.”

Even with this lack of evidence, the myth has taken hold through sheer force of repetition, playing on desires to rescue trafficking victims and appear tough on crime.

Seems to me that "sex trafficking' involves actually moving women or snaring more women in the particular locale. But then what happens afterwards? Move the women back to wherever they came from? That costs money. Dump the excess women picked up for the event?

If any of this was happening on any large, even if only individual pimps, or on an organized scale, I would expect that its existence should be relatively easy to prove. Proving existence is certainly much easier than getting criminal convictions.

Besides proving a negative is basically impossible where proving a positive is much easier.

Howdy askepticKinda where I was headed.Coercing anyone to engage in sex is wrong, regardless of age or sex and regardless of whether the sex act is paid for. I agree that there's a need to establish a minimum age for voluntary participation -- and any such age will be arbitrary, so let's go with 18.But --It seems to me that, if adults have a right to engage in mutually agreeable sex without asking for payment, they have a right to do so and to choose to pay or be paid. It's always been rather fishy whether making paid sex illegal is supposed to protect the john, the hooker, or the sensibilities of people who are not part of the transaction anyway. I'd say it was mostly the last of the three.The "trafficking" meme has some issues also. I can easily believe that some people, I'll assume young women for illustration, will reach a deal in Russia or Korea to be smuggled into the US, paying for the trip with a period of prostitution. Is that trafficking? Yes, kind of, but the women are not victims. I can believe that a small number of people are abducted and transported for prostitution but there are enough willing potential hookers that I'm ready to believe there are very few who are coerced. I'm ready to believe there are a considerable number of underage participants but likely few are actually coerced.I can easily believe that some extra hookers, of all ages and sexual practices, come into areas with major events. Supply and demand.

Other hyperbole I discount: "The pantry is bare!" at food banks just before Thanksgiving or Christmas. The "more people are coming than ever!" canard is probably true, however, because so many non-poor line up for the freebies.

Freebies, but also because Obama's economic legerdemain, his laser focus on good jobs, continues to make food banks more necessary. Especially if people are having to buy his (insert expletive of choice) healthcare plans.

"Increased human trafficking in NY at Superbowl!" was the topic just yesterday on the SoCal radio show Champions Of Justice, which is a self-serving program about how lawyers prostitute themselves. The guest was from the FBI -- an organization of thugs Eric Holder employs to threaten Obama's political enemies like Gibson Guitars.

I would think that any efficient business supplying these types of "men's services" would naturally try to be at places where there were large numbers of men.

Presumably, this is not a business that lends itself to accurate statistics, and as near as I can tell, the evidence from the article was based solely on arrest records.

Again I don't know this, but one can imagine that a city that wants conventions and large football games might not be too thorough in rooting out this sort of activity no matter what noises they make publicly.

The sex-trafficking claims have the odor of earlier, gender-war-feminist claims that Super Bowl Sunday brings a radical increase in the domestic abuse of women by their menfolk. That claim has been thoroughly debunked, yet we still hear it proclaimed as gospel from time to time -- and it's a good bet that should the sex-trafficking claim be similarly debunked, we'll nevertheless be hearing that one for quite a while longer, as well.

I agree with Mr. Den Beste. It seems more likely to me that sex trafficking would increase around political party conventions than around sporting events, because a larger fraction of those attending might be into that sort of thing.

InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.